Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? What do you think is a bigger act of faith?

03-06-2014 , 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doggg
Cough.

So, you act smugly toward people who try to control your life?

I don't think so. You usually act smugly when you are in control, or when you believe you will soon have control of other people's lives.
Nope. Someone who tries to tell me who I can marry can quite honestly go **** themselves.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-06-2014 , 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by javi
Nope. Someone who tries to tell me who I can marry can quite honestly go **** themselves.
Okay. Who do you want to marry, why -- and who exactly is stopping you?

Something tells me if we move away from your very-purposefully-stated generality, and add some relevant details, we might find a somewhat offensive and obnoxious request, whose only benefit to you will be a superficial victory over people you don't like.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-06-2014 , 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Do you agree that the universe had a beginning?
sure

Quote:
Originally Posted by javi
They do this because the people from group B try to control the lives of group A. If they would just mind their own business nobody would act smugly towards them.
i disagree

i think devout atheists are often more douchey than devout religiousers
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-06-2014 , 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
sure



i disagree

i think devout atheists are often more douchey than devout religiousers
Nothing can be more douchey than trying to define marriage as "between a man and woman". Or stating that you refuse to offer service to homosexuals in your place of business.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-07-2014 , 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
It isn't that hard.

1) The universe is all big and stuff. Doesn't make sense that it just poofed into existence.

2) Obviously the universe had to have come from something. We can call that thing the universe creator. The universe creator had to have been pretty awesome to be able to create the universe. Doesn't make sense that such a being poofed into existence.

3) Obviously the universe creator had to come from something. We can call that thing the universe creator creator. The universe creator creator had to have been pretty awesome to be able to create a universe creator. Doesn't make sense that such a being poofed into existence.

4) Wash, rinse, repeat.

What takes faith is believing that you know the nature of such things. What takes nearly no faith is believing that those who say they have knowledge of such things (and specifically why the universe creator decided to make the universe) are talking out of their ass.
I call this illogic the "the universe is pretty so God must exist" conjecture. Please, go on.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-08-2014 , 12:01 PM
I am an atheist and I find it hard to believe this that this all some random happy accident.

The universe seems to be in an constant state of destruction and creation. Life is miracle all to itself, and evolution barley scrapes the surface of the complexity of it.

I do not believe in God, but I cannot discount the possibility completely. Science is making great strides in our understanding, but the deeper we dig the stranger the universe seems to be.

So all I am really saying is I have no clue to whats going on and most likely will never know.

A very uncomfortable B.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-08-2014 , 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyCrash
I do not believe in God, but I cannot discount the possibility completely. Science is making great strides in our understanding, but the deeper we dig the stranger the universe seems to be.
Any man of science must accept this possibility. Claiming you know there is no god is just as embarrassing as claiming you know there is one. Aside from all the "control the populace" arguments for the existence of religion, most people are just too scared to accept the unknown. They demand an answer to what happens after death, and why they are here. They cannot tolerate random misfortune. If their wife & kids die in a fiery car crash they want to know why, and low tire pressure isnt good enough for them. They simply possess too much hubris to humbly state "I dont know" when it comes to the answers they seek. It's especially arrogant to think a human being, one of the most imperfect creatures on the planet, was given the keys to communicate with god. We are quite simply not worthy.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-09-2014 , 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyCrash
I am an atheist and I find it hard to believe this that this all some random happy accident.

The universe seems to be in an constant state of destruction and creation. Life is miracle all to itself, and evolution barley scrapes the surface of the complexity of it.

I do not believe in God, but I cannot discount the possibility completely. Science is making great strides in our understanding, but the deeper we dig the stranger the universe seems to be.

So all I am really saying is I have no clue to whats going on and most likely will never know.

A very uncomfortable B.
Well, admitting what you don't know is usually a good first step on the way towards knowing.

For example if I am wondering where my wallet is and I can't find it in the drawer, then I should probably start looking elsewhere.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-09-2014 , 07:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
sure
So, you agree that the universe had a beginning. Is this a leap of faith on your part? What evidence do you have that the universe hasn't in fact always existed?
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-09-2014 , 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyCrash
I am an atheist and I find it hard to believe this that this all some random happy accident.
Why would you use the words 'random', 'happy' and 'accident'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyCrash
The universe seems to be in an constant state of destruction and creation. Life is miracle all to itself, and evolution barley scrapes the surface of the complexity of it.
Why is life a 'miracle'? Some hypotheses suggest that life is inevitable (Emergent), do you not give weight to them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyCrash
I do not believe in God, but I cannot discount the possibility completely. Science is making great strides in our understanding, but the deeper we dig the stranger the universe seems to be.

So all I am really saying is I have no clue to whats going on and most likely will never know.

A very uncomfortable B.
I think that's where any rational mind should be. It seems irrational to simply rule out any other possibility than 'goddidit' and that's my primary objection to religions, they seek to stifle and discourage progress towards explanations that might contradict their divine theories. Fortunately, in the last few centuries, they've been doing a piss poor job of it.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-12-2014 , 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LockLow34
I call this illogic the "the universe is pretty so God must exist" conjecture. Please, go on.
It wasn't that at all. It was the "it is turtles all the way down" conjecture.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-12-2014 , 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doggg

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeueRegel
try this one -

A. believing in some sense the universe has always existed and its natural state includes self-organizational principals that make intelligent life inevitable

B. believing an omniscient creator exists separately from the universe and somehow created it from "nothing" specifically so intelligent life would emerge to keep him company
Or we can take out all of the ridiculous parts of your alternative that you tossed in there to make the alternative look silly.


B. believing in a creator
Are you saying a creator with those properties would be a ridiculous idea?
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
i think both a and bare leaps of faith
I agree that both A and B are equally ridiculous; The fact that we are here points to infinity, which doesn't logically make sense, at least to me.

I enjoyed "why is there something instead of nothing" but nothing ever gets resolved, obviously.

Either group condescending the other always seemed weird to me, since either possibility seems illogical.

An eternal God makes no more sense to me than an eternal Universe.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude

Either group condescending the other always seemed weird to me, since either possibility seems illogical.
Probably it happens because both sides believe their views to be perfectly logical. You think Craig's views are illogical? Can you say why?
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hat
Can anybody forget about the whole Christian thing for a moment and answer these questions? Thanks
Śūnyatā - The great void or the Tao (found in Buddhism)

Quote:
In order to go into Taoism at all, we must begin by being in the frame of mind in which it can be understood. You cannot force yourself into this frame of mind, anymore than you can smooth disturbed water with your hand. But let's say that our starting point is that we forget what we know, or think we know, and that we suspend judgment about practically everything, returning to what we were when we were babies when we had not yet learned the names or the language. And in this state, although we have extremely sensitive bodies and very alive senses, we have no means of making an intellectual or verbal commentary on what is going on.

You are just plain ignorant, but still very much alive, and in this state you just feel what is without calling it anything at all. You know nothing at all about anything called an external world in relation to an internal world. You don't know who you are, you haven't even the idea of the word you or I-- it is before all that. Nobody has taught you self control, so you don't know the difference between the noise of a car outside and a wandering thought that enters your mind- they are both something that happens. You don't identify the presence of a thought that may be just an image of a passing cloud in your mind's eye or the passing automobile; they happen. Your breath happens. Light, all around you, happens. Your response to it by blinking happens.

So, on one hand you are simply unable to do anything, and on the other there is nothing you are supposed to do. Nobody has told you anything to do. You are completely unable to do anything but be aware of the buzz. The visual buzz, the audible buzz, the tangible buzz, the smellable buzz-- all around the buzz is going on. Watch it. Don't ask who is watching it; you have no information about that yet. You don't know that it requires a watcher for something to be watched. That is somebody's idea; but you don't know that.

Lao-tzu says, "The scholar learns something every day, the man of tao unlearns something every day, until he gets back to non-doing." Just simply, without comment, without an idea in your head, be aware. What else can you do? You don't try to be aware; you are. You will find, of course, that you can not stop the commentary going on inside your head, but at least you can regard it as interior noise. Listen to your chattering thoughts as you would listen to the singing of a kettle.

We don't know what it is we are aware of, especially when we take it altogether, and there's this sense of something going on. I can't even really say 'this,' although I said 'something going on.' But that is an idea, a form of words. Obviously I couldn't say something is going on unless I could say something else isn't. I know motion by contrast with rest, and while I am aware of motion I am also aware of at rest. So maybe what's at rest isn't going and what's in motion is going, but I won't use that concept then because in order for it to make sense I have to include both. If I say here it is, that excludes what isn't, like space. If I say this, it excludes that, and I am reduced to silence. But you can feel what I am talking about. That's what is called tao, in Chinese. That's where we begin.

Tao means basically "way", and so "course"; the course of nature. Lao-tzu said the way of the functioning of the tao is "so of itself"; that is to say it is spontaneous. Watch again what is going on. If you approach it with this wise ignorance, you will see that you are witnessing a happening. In other words, in this primal way of looking at things there is no difference between what you do, on the one hand, and what happens to you on the other. It is all the same process. Just as your thought happens, the car happens outside, and so the clouds and the stars.

When a Westerner hears that he thinks this is some sort of fatalism or determinism, but that is because he still preserves in the back of his mind two illusions. One is that what is happening is happening to him, and therefore he is the victim of circumstances. But when you are in primal ignorance there is no you different from what is happening, and therefore it is not happening to you. It is just happening. So is "you", or what you call you, or what you will later call you. It is part of the happening, and you are part of the universe, although strictly speaking the universe has no parts. We only call certain features of the universe parts. However you can't disconnect them from the rest without causing them to be not only non-existent, but to never to have existed at all.

When a one experiences oneself and the universe happening together, the other illusion one is liable to have is that it is determined in the sense that what is happening now follows necessarily from what happened in the past. But you don't know anything about that in your primal ignorance. Cause and effect? Why obviously not, because if you are really naive you see the past is the result of what is happening now. It goes backwards into the past, like a wake goes backwards from a ship. All the echoes are disappearing finally, they go away, and away, and away. And it is all starting now. What we call the future is nothing, the great void, and everything comes out of the great void. If you shut your eyes, and contemplate reality only with your ears, you will find there is a background of silence, and all sounds are coming out of it. They start out of silence. If you close your eyes, and just listen, you will observe the sounds came out of nothing, floated off, and off, stopped being a sonic echo, and became a memory, which is another kind of echo. It is very simple; it all begins now, and therefore it is spontaneous. It isn't determined; that is a philosophical notion. Nor is it capricious; that's another philosophical notion. We distinguish between what is orderly and what is random, but of course we don't really know what randomness is. What is 'so-of-itself,' sui generis in Latin, means coming into being spontaneously on its own accord, and that, incidentally, is the real meaning of virgin birth.

That is the world, that is the tao, but perhaps that makes us feel afraid. We may ask, "If all that is happening spontaneously, who's in charge? I am not in charge, that is pretty obvious, but I hope there is God or somebody looking after all this." But why should there be someone looking after it, because then there is a new worry that you may not of thought of, which is, "Who takes care of the caretaker's daughter while the caretaker is busy taking care?" Who guards the guards? Who supervises the police? Who looks after God? You may say "God doesn't need looking after" Oh? Well, nor does this. - ALAN WATTS
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 07:48 AM
You could also ask where does original thought come from? Where does spontaneous action come from? What are quarks made of?

Maybe the problem is not with what there is but with our view of how things are (what we think they are). Why can it not be that the universe is self-organising?

We say how was I made? But we are not made, we grow out of this world.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by javi
Nothing can be more douchey than trying to define marriage as "between a man and woman". Or stating that you refuse to offer service to homosexuals in your place of business.
i wouldnt say nothing. it is definitely doucjey, no doubt.

actually refusing to service homosexuals is not douchey the more i think about it. it may be illegal, but its not douchey if they are refusing it because of their moral belief

insisting that it makes them douchey is actually douchey

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyCrash
I am an atheist and I find it hard to believe this that this all some random happy accident.

The universe seems to be in an constant state of destruction and creation. Life is miracle all to itself, and evolution barley scrapes the surface of the complexity of it.

I do not believe in God, but I cannot discount the possibility completely. Science is making great strides in our understanding, but the deeper we dig the stranger the universe seems to be.

So all I am really saying is I have no clue to whats going on and most likely will never know.

A very uncomfortable B.
THIS THIS THIS

great post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
So, you agree that the universe had a beginning. Is this a leap of faith on your part? What evidence do you have that the universe hasn't in fact always existed?
of course it is a leap of faith. There is no evidence and never can be. we will never know the true answer.

you act like "THERE IS NO PROOF OF GOD, ERGO THERE IS NO GOD"

thats bull****

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I agree that both A and B are equally ridiculous; The fact that we are here points to infinity, which doesn't logically make sense, at least to me.

I enjoyed "why is there something instead of nothing" but nothing ever gets resolved, obviously.

Either group condescending the other always seemed weird to me, since either possibility seems illogical.

An eternal God makes no more sense to me than an eternal Universe.
Why are you insistent on using the word eternal
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan

of course it is a leap of faith. There is no evidence and never can be. we will never know the true answer.
There is plenty of evidence, this is why I asked that question. The universe is expanding, this is in no doubt, and the implication is that it is expanding 'from' somewhere, a central point of origin, what we're calling the 'big bang'. Further evidence is the 'cooling';w e observe in the background radiation. So, we have evidence that the universe had a beginning. Where is the 'act of faith'? Even the religions accept that the universe had a beginning, IMO because it happens not to conflict with what they would like to believe.

Compare that though to the assertion that god was that beginning, is there evidence of that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
you act like "THERE IS NO PROOF OF GOD, ERGO THERE IS NO GOD"

thats bull****
Actually, my position is much closer to JohnyCrash's, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I don't believe in any gods, I'm sure that there are no gods, but I wouldn't go so far as to make an explicit assertion that there are no gods.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Probably it happens because both sides believe their views to be perfectly logical. You think Craig's views are illogical? Can you say why?
I think that they're no more illogical than the opposing view. I'm not saying the arguments themselves aren't sound, but that they at some point accept the ex-nihilo point of view, or shrug and ignore the ex-nihilo possibility.


Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
Why are you insistent on using the word eternal
Theists will tell you, me included, that God always existed. His eternal qualities don't make sense, they don't fit in to our systems of science and logic, nothing can just be.

Hawking himself doesn't focus on things before the big bang:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."

He does seemingly remedy the ex-nihilo argument, but given his previous caveat, he's not too concerned with prior events. He suggests:

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
It wasn't that at all. It was the "it is turtles all the way down" conjecture.
In the beginning, there was neither something nor nothing, just the all-possible.
From the all-possible all things come and go.
God is the all-possible.
[terminus]
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-13-2014 , 03:49 PM
i am not denying the big bang

i am not sure god is eternal

shrug
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-14-2014 , 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
i am not denying the big bang

i am not sure god is eternal

shrug
Then it was a little confusing when you said, with reference to the universe having a beginning "of course it is a leap of faith. There is no evidence and never can be".

My understanding of the 'eternal god' bit is that it's simply required for the monotheistic religion's scriptures not to have serious problems, such as; If god was created then who created him, or, if he just popped into existence from nothing then they just handed the debate to the Physicists who are saying it's possible for something to come from nothing.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-14-2014 , 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
i wouldnt say nothing. it is definitely doucjey, no doubt.

actually refusing to service homosexuals is not douchey the more i think about it. it may be illegal, but its not douchey if they are refusing it because of their moral belief
Sounds reasonable. I'll claim people who refuse to service homosexuals are douchey and argue this on the basis of my moral belief then.

That should make it okay, right?
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-14-2014 , 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffee
In the beginning, there was neither something nor nothing, just the all-possible.
From the all-possible all things come and go.
God is the all-possible.
[terminus]
I am pretty sure you didn't say anything meaningful there.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote
03-14-2014 , 03:01 PM
Theists accepting God as eternal is no better than Hawkins suspending the laws of the universe before the big bang to make existence possible.

Hawkins ignores events before the big bang, by "cutting them out of the theory", like theists simply say that it's not possible to understand God.

Life is not logical, theists and atheists pretending that the opposite view is ridiculous while ignoring the root of their own belief seems disingenuous.

I can say I'm a Christian and believe God is eternal, knowing full well that makes no sense. The alternative also makes no sense.
What do you think is a bigger act of faith? Quote

      
m